I think thats a rather distorted take. This research shows the medieval warming period may have root causes in ocean currents and shows population studies of sea life to back it up.
The current models for climate focus on CO2 and cannot explain the medieval warming period.
The argument I throw is that this may be true, but it does not invalidate AGW, it only says there are other sources of warming, than CO2. It does not mean all warmings are because of Ocean current movements, or are unrelated to CO2 or anthropogenic pressures. It does not invalidate climate models which cannot explain the medieval warm period, it simply shows another potential source of warming at that time. Of course the question of why the currents shifted has to be asked. And in like sense, the question about the strength of current day ocean currents has to be asked. But there is no necessary nexus for why they changed then, and why they change now. On the other hand, the component of change over time which does track rise in global CO2 and other effects is large. I believe as others do, compellingly large.
It's not an analogy of the research itself, it's an analogy of how someone might fallaciously use the research to declare that CO2-based warming is not happening.
Sure, it's possible the symptoms are due to some other unclear cause, but it's sufficiently unlikely that the person is being unreasonable.
I think the reductive view is "because the medieval warm period was caused by ocean currents all warming COULD be caused by ocean currents and since ocean currents aren't what the model says (about modern warming) the model must be wrong therefore AGW is wrong because it can't encompass this warming event"
The current models for climate focus on CO2 and cannot explain the medieval warming period.
The argument I throw is that this may be true, but it does not invalidate AGW, it only says there are other sources of warming, than CO2. It does not mean all warmings are because of Ocean current movements, or are unrelated to CO2 or anthropogenic pressures. It does not invalidate climate models which cannot explain the medieval warm period, it simply shows another potential source of warming at that time. Of course the question of why the currents shifted has to be asked. And in like sense, the question about the strength of current day ocean currents has to be asked. But there is no necessary nexus for why they changed then, and why they change now. On the other hand, the component of change over time which does track rise in global CO2 and other effects is large. I believe as others do, compellingly large.
I don't see how that fits your Analogy.